RSS Feed     Twitter     Facebook
Blog > Archive by tag 'Conservatives'

Posts Tagged ‘Conservatives’

Cameron: helicopter deficit is scandal

July 13th, 2009 | No Comments

Conservative leader’s comments come as poll reveals backing for British involvement in war has grown

David Cameron today said it was a “scandal” that the British army did not have enough helicopters to transport troops around Afghanistan.

Speaking as a new poll suggested that the growing British casualty rate had not increased public hostility to the conflict, the Conservative leader said the government should deal with the helicopter problem “as a matter of urgency”.

Cameron will have the chance to challenge Gordon Brown on the issue when the prime minister makes a statement to the Commons, which will cover the latest deaths in Afghanistan, later today.

In a speech on international aid today, the Tory leader said the government should supply British troops with more equipment.

“Of course we must do that – it is a scandal in particular that they still lack enough helicopters to move around in Afghanistan,” he added.

“The government must deal with that issue as a matter of extreme urgency.”

Research carried out as news broke of the deaths of eight soldiers in 24 hours – taking the British death toll in Afghanistan to more than that in Iraq – revealed support for the war remained firm and backing for British involvement had grown.

The poll of 1,000 showed that people appear reluctant to turn against a conflict while soldiers are fighting and dying on the front line, and the increasingly high-profile nature of the war appears to have strengthened public backing.

Opposition to the war, at 47%, is just ahead of support, at 46%, according to the ICM poll for the Guardian and the BBC’s Newsnight.

Backing for Britain’s role in the conflict has grown since the last time an ICM poll was conducted on the subject in 2006.

It is up 15 points from 31%, while opposition has fallen over the same period by six points from 53%.

The poll also showed that 42% are in favour of the immediate withdrawal of British troops, and a further 14% want them home by the end of the year. These figures are almost identical to the results in 2006.

A further 36% want troops to stay as long as they are needed – again a similar proportion to 2006, when British casualties were lower.

The findings came as ministers drew up plans to devote more troops and resources to Afghanistan after dismissing repeated requests from defence chiefs for reinforcements.

The shift in approach follows the rising death toll, outspoken criticism from opposition politicians and the prospect of a long period of intense fighting against the Taliban.

Gordon Brown will today confirm that the number of British troops is increasing to 9,000 from a base of 8,300.

One favoured option, which has not been agreed, is for the number of troops to be kept at 9,000 after the next general election.

Today, Miliband told GMTV the government’s strategy in Afghanistan was clear.

“This is a mission that’s been developed with a very clear strategy: above all, to make us safer here because we know these areas of Afghanistan and its neighbour Pakistan are used to launch terrorism around the world,” he said. “So the mission for us is clear.”

Miliband admitted there had been a “terrible casualty toll” and paid tribute to those who were killed, but added that more helicopters alone were not the answer.

John Maples, the Tory deputy chairman, yesterday told the Guardian: “Increasingly, people are starting to ask whether this war is winnable and whether our military objectives are sensible given the number of troops and the amount of equipment we are prepared to commit.”

Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader who almost became the UN special representative in Afghanistan last year, was scathing about British and US conduct.

“The army were persuaded, for political reasons, to follow a Beau Geste strategy – putting our people out in forward forts largely because the politicians were persuaded by [Afghan president Hamid] Karzai that this was where his supporters and family lived,” he said.

“It led to a military error of major proportions. The army’s job in a war is to find and kill the enemy.”

After previously blocking requests by the chiefs of staff for 2,000 more troops to be deployed in southern Afghanistan, Brown has said in a letter to senior Commons committee chairmen: “We will of course continue to review our force levels based on the advice of commanders and discussions with our allies.”

The Treasury has previously blocked the defence chiefs’ request on the grounds of cost.

However, the chancellor, Alistair Darling, said over the weekend: “If [British troops] need equipment, whatever it is, to support them in the frontline then of course the government, through the Treasury, is ready to help.”

He told the BBC: “You can’t send troops into the frontline and not be prepared to see it through in terms of the … resources they need.”

Significantly, given the government’s past decisions to cap resources for Afghanistan, Darling added: “You’ve got to listen to what the chiefs of staff tell us.”

Commanders on the ground have made no secret of the fact that they want more helicopters and more British troops.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, was yesterday reported to have told a private dinner of MPs that too few troops and helicopters were available.

In an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service on Saturday, Brown paid tribute to the “sacrifice” of the 15 troops who have died since the start of the month in the bloodiest fighting Britain has seen in the Afghan campaign.

“I know that this has been a difficult summer – it is going to be a difficult summer,” he said.

The prime minister said he had been assured, in a lengthy briefing by commanders, that Operation Panther’s Claw to drive the Taliban from central Helmand province was making “considerable progress”.

Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, said troops were “attacking the Taliban in one of their heartland areas”.

“The reason they are standing and fighting is they know that what we are doing potentially hurts them seriously and strategically,” he said.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Politics Weekly: phone hacking

July 10th, 2009 | No Comments

The morning we meet for Politics Weekly, the Guardian had just broken news that another paper, the News of the World, may have hacked into the phones of thousands of public figures, paying off one victim, with a cool £700,000… Observer columnist Henry Porter tells us what it means.

We cover the pressing political angle: the editor of the paper until 2007 – Andy Coulson – is the current press adviser to Cameron and as things go, could be spinning from number 10 within the year. Henry knows Coulson and – after vouching for Coulson’s likeability – thinks that whether he knew about or not his position may be untenable. Porter’s co-columnist from the Obs has a different point. For Nick Cohen, the story sets back the campaign for freedom speech being waged against overly powerful libel laws.

Then we cover attempts to reform two almighty institutions – the boys in blue and peers with blue blood (translation of florid description: the police and the Lords).

In the wake of another report into police responsibility for the death of newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests, Porter believes the lack of transparency surrounding how the police made their decision makes the case for elected police officials even more pressing. Cohen questions how much the mayor of London Boris Johnson knew – after all the mayor sits on the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Then to reform of the House of Lords. They’ve spent 13 years promising it and next week we will finally get their last attempt at it – a bill will be published that will, at the very least, abolish the principle of hereditary peers. But is that enough? And even if the government were to propose further reforms, do they have the political time, capital and chutzpah to get any more fundamental reforms through? Michael White marvels at the Lords energy and commitment and thinks they will survive. But aroud the table, the answer all round has only two letters.

And as the death toll continues to rise in Afghanistan, we ask is there a a plan? Nick thinks they are fighting a just war, but wonders if Afghanistan can afford its level of commitment. Henry Porter thinks the problem is that there is no clear strategy.

Tuck in.


Read More »

Tory top brass stand by their man

July 9th, 2009 | No Comments

David Cameron and George Osborne threw a protective arm around Andy Coulson today as the Tory high command insisted that their communications director would not be forced to stand down.

Amid unease among some backbenchers at the party’s determination to stand by Coulson, Cameron, the Tory leader and Osborne, shadow chancellor, praised Coulson for “upright” conduct in his work for the party.

The leadership decided on Wednesday, soon after the story broke on guardian.co.uk, that they would protect Coulson, a key member of the Cameron and Osborne inner circle.

A message was sent out that there was “no question” of removing Coulson after he reiterated an undertaking he had given in the lengthy negotiations which preceded his appointment as communications chief in 2007. Coulson made clear once again that he knew nothing of the phone hacking at the News of the World but had resigned as editor because he took ultimate, but not personal, responsibility.

“There was extensive due diligence done into Andy before he was appointed,” one senior party figure said. “It became clear that he had paid a price by standing down as editor. That is the line we are sticking to.”

A bullish Tory leadership intensified its defence of Coulson today by sanctioning an aggressive attack on the Guardian and the Labour party after the Metropolitan police said they would be taking no action over the phone hacking.

Tory sources were so sure of Coulson’s position that they issued a point-by-point rebuttal of the Guardian’s claims. They said the Guardian had uncovered nothing new, apart from the payment to Taylor.

“Little is new,” a source said of the Guardian reports. “Much of its claims have already been considered by the Metropolitan police, the information commissioner and the high court.”

The Tory leadership decided to rally round Coulson for three broad reasons:

• Cameron believes Coulson is an invaluable asset, who has played a key role in sharpening the Tories’ act in the last two years.

• Losing such a senior figure would raise questions about Cameron’s judgment.

• A determination not to allow Labour – which was severely damaged by the resignation of Damian McBride, an adviser to Gordon Brown – to exploit the new allegations to damage the Tories.

Cameron agreed to step up the Tory operation to protect Coulson after finding himself in the rare position this morning of having to answer hostile questions on his doorstep. The Tory leader, who has enjoyed a relatively easy ride in the media over the last two years, criticised the News of the World for invading people’s privacy and said it was right that Coulson had taken ultimate – but not personal – responsibility by resigning as editor. “Of course I knew about that resignation before offering him the job,” Cameron said. “But I believe in giving people a second chance. As director of communications for the Conservatives, he does an excellent job in a proper, upright way at all times.”

Osborne spoke in almost identical terms. “Andy Coulson has conducted his job in a totally upright and proper manner and will continue to do so,” he said.

While the leadership is determined to protect Coulson, there is unease in the party on two levels.

• Some MPs fear that the continuing revelations about the News of the World’s tactics could mean that Coulson will break a famous rule established by Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s director of communications. This states that a press officer is finished the moment they become the story. One senior Tory said: “This is a breathtaking story. What the hell has happened? Andy Coulson seems to have a very narrow definition of what he did and did not know. I can’t imagine as editor he did not know what was happening.”

• Some backbenchers said the decision to stand by Coulson highlighted a pattern of behaviour by Cameron: that he protects members of his inner circle while doing little to support other Conservatives. There was particular anger at Cameron’s claim that he believed in giving people a second chance, something he did not show to veteran Tory MPs who were ordered to stand down by the leadership when embarrassing details of their expenses were published.

“There does seem to be one rule for the golden circle and another for everyone else,” a senior MP said. “Sir Peter Viggers [MP for Gosport] made a silly claim for a duck island which was actually refused. But he was told as soon as the story appeared that he would have to stand down as an MP. Is that fair?”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

CPS to ‘urgently review’ News of the World case

July 9th, 2009 | No Comments

• Metropolitan Police rules out new investigation
• News International: ‘Confidentiality obligations’ prevent comment on ‘certain’ Guardian allegations
• Andy Coulson may face Commons culture select committee
• David Cameron defends his communications chief
• Gordon Brown: ‘This raises serious questions’

The Crown Prosecution Service today said it would undertake an urgent review of evidence in the News of the World phone hacking case, after the Metropolitan Police revealed it did not plan a further investigation of the allegations.

However, Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor, now the Tory communications chief, could be grilled by MPs for a Commons inquiry into the affair.

Keir Starmer QC, the director of public prosecutions, said he had ordered an “urgent examination” of material provided by the police in the News of the World case three years ago. He added that the process will take time but he hopes to make a further statement in coming days.

“I have no reason to consider that there was anything inappropriate in the prosecutions that were undertaken in this case,” Starmer added.

“In the light of the fresh allegations that have been made, some preliminary inquiries have been undertaken and I have now ordered an urgent examination of the material that was supplied to the CPS by the police three years ago.

“I am taking this action to satisfy myself and assure the public that the appropriate actions were taken in relation to that material.”

John Yates, the Metropolitan Police’s assistant commissioner, said that no further evidence had come to light since Scotland Yard’s original investigation, which led to the News of the World’s royal editor, Clive Goodman, and a private investigator, Glenn Mulcaire, being jailed for four and six months respectively in January 2007 after they were found guilty of hacking into the mobile phones of royal household staff. Coulson also resigned after Goodman was jailed in January 2007.

Speaking outside Scotland Yard in central London, Yates said he was not involved in the original Mulcaire and Goodman investigation and had reviewed the facts of the case with “an independent mind”.

He added that Mulcaire and Goodman targeted potentially “hundreds” of people, but the pair “used the tactic [of phone-hacking] against a … small group of individuals”. He said all those individuals were notified that their phones had been targeted. “Where there was tapping they were contacted by police,” Yates said.

“In the vast majority of cases [the Met originally looked into] there was insufficient evidence to show that tapping had actually been achieved. No additional evidence has come to light since this [case] was concluded … no further investigation is required.”

Yates added that the original investigation had “not uncovered any evidence that John Prescott’s phoneline had been tapped”.

John Whittingdale MP, the Conservative chair of the Commons culture select committee, said today it was “highly likely” to call Coulson to give evidence as part of an investigation into how journalists at the paper obtained information and whether executives knew about the methods they employed.

The investigation has been prompted by the Guardian’s revelations that News Group Newspapers, the News International subsidiary that publishes the Sunday tabloid, has paid a total of £1m in out-of-court settlements to three people whose mobile phones were hacked into. They included Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association, who received £700,000.

That has prompted a political storm today, with Home Office minister David Hanson forced to take emergency questions from angry MPs on the matter during a hastily-convened session at the House of Commons this morning.

News of the World parent company News International today broke its silence on the phone-hacking affair, but did not deny any of the Guardian’s allegations.

The company said its journalists fully complied with relevant legislation and codes of conduct since February 2007, after the Goodman case and Coulson’s resignation, but that it was legally bound to not discuss some of the Guardian’s allegations.

“News International is prevented by confidentiality obligations from discussing certain allegations made in the Guardian newspaper today,” the company said.

“Since February 2007, News International has continued to work with its journalists and its industry partners to ensure that its journalists fully comply with both the relevant legislation and the rigorous requirements of the PCC’s Code of Conduct. At the same time, we will not shirk from vigorously defending our right and proper role to expose wrongdoing in the public interest.”

Gordon Brown, the prime minister, has also mentioned the row about phone-hacking today at a press conference in L’Aquila, Italy, where he is attending the G8 summit.

“I am not aware of the details of what is being talked about, other than that there is an issue on this in London,” Brown said. “I think this raises questions that are serious and will obviously have to be considered, but I understand that the police are looking at a statement later today and I do not think I should say any more than that.”

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, is facing calls for Coulson to quit as his director of communications. This morning Cameron was forced to defend the former News of the World editor, telling reporters outside his home in London: “It’s wrong for newspapers to breach people’s privacy with no justification. That is why Andy Coulson resigned as editor of the News of the World two and a half years ago.

“Of course I knew about that resignation before offering him the job. But I believe in giving people a second chance. As director of communications for the Conservatives he does an excellent job in a proper, upright way at all times.”

Some of the most powerful figures in Rurpert Murdoch’s News Corporation media empire will also be asked to give evidence by MPs on the culture select committee when they begin their phone-hacking investigation next Tuesday.

They include Rebekah Wade, the outgoing Sun editor who has been promoted to News International chief executive; Stuart Kuttner, the News of the World’s outgoing managing editor; Colin Myler, the current News of the World editor; and Les Hinton, the former chairman of News International.

Whittingdale also said that Nick Davies, the Guardian journalist who broke the story, will be asked to appear at the hearing about the controversy. Coulson will be asked to give evidence after that hearing has taken place.

The select committee quizzed Hinton, who ran Rupert Murdoch’s stable of British newspapers until the end of 2007, about phone hacking at the News of the World during an inquiry earlier that year into self-regulation of the press.

That was prompted, in part, by the arrest of former News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman in August 2006 on charges of obtaining information illegally. Goodman was jailed in January 2007, prompting Coulson’s resignation.

Two months later, Hinton told MPs on the culture select committee: “I believe that Clive Goodman was the only person who knew what was going on.”

Hinton is now based in New York as chief executive of Wall Street Journal owner Dow Jones, part of Murdoch’s News Corporation.

The Press Complaints Commission has today said it may reopen its 2007 investigation into phone hacking by newspaper journalists. The PCC also said it would investigate any new allegations about potentially illegal activity “without delay”.

Culture secretary Ben Bradshaw has said the affair raises questions for the Tory leader. “David Cameron, the police and the Press Complaints Commission all have questions to answer in relation to today’s Guardian revelations,” he said in a message posted on Twitter this morning.

The Guardian revealed yesterday that Rupert Murdoch’s News Group Newspapers, the News of the World’s parent company, has paid out more than £1m to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of his journalists’ repeated involvement in the use of criminal methods to get stories.

Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association, received a £700,000 payment from News Group.

The methods used by the News of the World came to light after Goodman was jailed. Coulson was editing the paper at the time and resigned when Goodman was jailed.

News International executives, including Coulson, said they did not know about Goodman’s actions and that he was acting alone.

Former home secretary Charles Clarke told Radio 4′s Today Programme this morning: “I think it is outrageous. I think we do need action immediately.

“News International has to publish the full list of those that they have bugged. I think that David Cameron has to sack Andy Coulson because his denial is very narrow in the extreme. I think David Cameron himself has to be much clearer about the situation.”

Former cabinet minister Geoff Hoon said: “It is hard to see how in these circumstances Andy Coulson can continue as David Cameron’s communications chief while such a cloud hangs over his reputation. David Cameron must make clear what action he intends to take on this matter.”

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, said: “At the very least Andy Coulson was responsible for a newspaper that was out of control and at worst he was personally implicated.”

Clarke also told the BBC the police should be asked why they failed to take action after learning about the extent of the phone hacking and the number of people targeted by News of the World journalists.

They included Taylor, former culture secretary Tessa Jowell, Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes, celebrity PR Max Clifford, model Elle MacPherson and football agent Sky Andrew. News Group denied all knowledge of the hacking, but Taylor last year sued them on the basis that they must have known about it.

“I think that the home secretary should be asking the chief inspector of constabulary for a full report about the police behaviour in this whole incident,” Clarke said.

Former deputy prime minister John Prescott, one of the alleged targets of the hacking, also said he wanted answers from the police. “I find it staggering that there could be a list known to the police of people who had their phone tapped.

“I’m named as one of them. For such a criminal act not to be reported to me, and for action not to be taken against the people who have done it, reflects very badly on the police, and I want to know their answer.”

Prescott also called on Cameron to dismiss Coulson.

Coulson said yesterday: “This story relates to an alleged payment made after I left the News of the World two and half years ago. I took full responsibility at the time for what happened on my watch but without my knowledge and resigned.”

John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons culture committee, said he wanted to summon newspaper editors to answer “serious” questions about the allegations.

“There are a number of questions I would like to put to News International on the basis of what the Guardian has reported,” he said.

His committee would examine the issue “as a matter of urgency” at a scheduled meeting later today, he said. “It may well be that we decide we wish to have somebody from News International to appear before us.”

He said he had seen no “direct evidence” that assurances previously given to the committee by the publisher on the matter had been untrue.

But Whittingdale added: “If that is the case it does beg the question why News International have apparently paid huge sums of money in settlement of actions in the courts. That is a question I would wish to put to News International.”

It is possible that Coulson could be called to give evidence if the committee decides to reopen its investigation into the affair.

News International executives told the committee in 2007 that they were unaware of Goodman’s activities or those of Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator who worked for the company.

He was jailed along with Goodman in January 2007.

The Press Complaints Commission investigated the allegations but failed to find evidence of wrongdoing. It did not question Coulson as part of its investigation.

The payments to Taylor and two other individuals secured secrecy in three cases that threatened to expose evidence of Murdoch’s journalists using private investigators who illegally hacked into the mobile phone messages of numerous public figures to gain unlawful access to confidential personal data, including tax records, social security files, bank statements and itemised phone bills. Cabinet ministers, MPs, actors and sports stars were all targets of the private investigators.

The evidence unearthed by the Guardian may open the door to hundreds more legal actions by victims of News Group, the Murdoch company that publishes the News of the World and the Sun, as well as provoking police inquiries into reporters who were involved and the senior executives responsible for them.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

MPs to investigate hacking claims

July 9th, 2009 | No Comments

• Les Hinton and Nick Davies will be asked to give evidence
• Andy Coulson, Cameron communications chief, will “almost certainly” be called

An inquiry into the Guardian revelations about the use of illegal surveillance techniques by News International newspapers was launched this morning by the Commons culture, media and sport committee.

John Whittingdale, the committee chairman, said that the former News International boss Les Hinton and the Guardian’s reporter Nick Davies would be asked to give evidence at a hearing next Tuesday about the controversy.

Whittingdale also said it was “almost certain” that his committee would subsequently want to take evidence from Andy Coulson, the former News of the World editor who now works as David Cameron’s communications chief.

After Clive Goodman, a News of the World reporter, was jailed in 2007 for illegally hacking into the mobile phones of three royal staff, Hinton told the committee that he was “absolutely convinced” that Goodman was the only person who knew about phone hacking at the paper.

Whittingdale said that, in the light of what Hinton said at the time, his committee was “completely shocked” to read that News Group, the News International parent company, had paid out more than £1m to settle legal cases involving illegal surveillance.

Hinton will be asked if he wants to “add to or amend” anything he told the committee in 2007.

The Guardian will also be asked to supply all the evidence acquired in the course of its investigtion to the committee.

Whittingdale, Conservative MP for Maldon and East Chelmsford, said: “The Guardian report raises a lot of questions. If News International did not have any knowledge of these practices, it begs the question as to why they paid more than £1m. The committee is extremely concerned about this.”

After the hearing next Tuesday, the committee will decide what other witnesses it wishes to call. Whittingdale said that the committee would probably want to hear from Stuart Kuttner, the News of the World’s outgoing managing editor, Rebekah Wade, the former Sun editor who has been promoted to News International chief executive, Colin Myler, the News of the World editor, and “almost certainly” Coulson.

The committee discussed the affair this morning before its members started considering a draft report containing the conclusions of its ongoing inquiry into press standards.

More details soon …

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Murdoch papers paid £1m to phone-hacking victims

July 9th, 2009 | No Comments

• News of the World bugging led to £700,000 payout to PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor
• Sun editor Rebekah Wade and Conservative communications chief Andy Coulson – both ex-NoW editors – involved
• News International chairman Les Hinton told MPs reporter jailed for phone-hacking was one-off case

Rupert Murdoch’s News Group News­papers has paid out more than £1m to settle legal cases that threatened to reveal evidence of his journalists’ repeated involvement in the use of criminal methods to get stories.

The payments secured secrecy over out-of-court settlements in three cases that threatened to expose evidence of Murdoch journalists using private investigators who illegally hacked into the mobile phone messages of numerous public ­figures to gain unlawful access to confidential personal data, including tax records, social security files, bank statements and itemised phone bills. Cabinet ministers, MPs, actors and sports stars were all targets of the private investigators.

Today, the Guardian reveals details of the suppressed evidence, which may open the door to hundreds more legal actions by victims of News Group, the Murdoch company that publishes the News of the World and the Sun, as well as provoking police inquiries into reporters who were involved and the senior executives responsible for them. The evidence also poses difficult questions for:

• Conservative leader David Cameron’s director of communications, Andy Coulson, who was deputy editor and then editor of the News of the World when, the suppressed evidence shows, journalists for whom he was responsible were engaging in hundreds of apparently illegal acts.

• Murdoch executives who, albeit in good faith, misled a parliamentary select committee, the Press Complaints Commission and the public.

• The Metropolitan police, which did not alert all those whose phones were targeted, and the Crown Prosecution Service, which did not pursue all possible charges against News Group personnel.

• The Press Complaints Commission, which claimed to have conducted an investigation, but failed to uncover any evidence of illegal activity.

The suppressed legal cases are linked to the jailing in January 2007 of a News of the World reporter, Clive Goodman, for hacking into the mobile phones of three royal staff, an offence under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. At the time, News International said it knew of no other journalist who was involved in hacking phones and that Goodman had acted without their knowledge.

But one senior source at the Met told the Guardian that during the Goodman inquiry, officers found evidence of News Group staff using private investigators who hacked into “thousands” of mobile phones. Another source with direct knowledge of the police findings put the figure at “two or three thousand” mobiles. They suggest that MPs from all three parties and cabinet ministers, including former deputy prime minister John Prescott and former culture secretary Tessa Jowell, were among the targets.

Last night, Prescott said: “I think Mr Cameron should be thinking of getting rid of Coulson.”

However, a spokeswoman for Cameron said the Tory leader was “very relaxed about the story”.

News International has always maintained it had no knowledge of phone hacking by anybody acting on its behalf.

Murdoch told Bloomberg news last night that he knew nothing about the payments. “If that had happened I would know about it,” he said.

A private investigator who had worked for News Group, Glenn Mulcaire, was also jailed in January 2007. He admitted hacking into the phones of five other targets, including the chief ­executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association, Gordon Taylor. Among the phones he hacked were those of the Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes, celebrity PR Max Clifford, model Elle MacPherson and football agent Sky Andrew. News Group denied all knowledge of the hacking, but Taylor last year sued them on the basis that they must have known about it.

In documents initially submitted to the high court, News Group executives said the company had not been involved in any way in Mulcaire’s hacking of Taylor’s phone. They denied keeping any recording or notes of intercepted messages. But, at the request of Taylor’s lawyers, the court ordered the production of detailed evidence from Scotland Yard’s inquiry in the Goodman case, and from an inquiry by the Information Commissioner’s office into journalists who dishonestly obtain confidential personal records.

The Scotland Yard files included paperwork which revealed that, contrary to News Group’s denial, Mulcaire had provided a recording of the messages on Taylor’s phone to a News of the World journalist who had transcribed them and emailed them to a senior reporter, and that a News of the World executive had offered Mulcaire a substantial bonus for a story specifically related to the intercepted messages.

Several famous figures in football are among those whose messages were intercepted. Coulson was editing the paper at this time. He said last night: “This story relates to an alleged payment made after I left the News of the World two and half years ago. I have no knowledge whatsoever of any settlement with Gordon Taylor.

“The Mulcaire case was investigated thoroughly by the police and by the Press Complaints Commission. I took full responsibility at the time for what happened on my watch but without my knowledge and resigned.”

The paperwork from the Information Commission revealed the names of 31 journalists working for the News of the World and the Sun, together with the details of government agencies, banks, phone companies and others who were conned into handing over confidential information. This is an offence under the Data Protection Act unless it is justified by public interest.

Senior editors are among those implicated. This activity occurred before the mobile phone hacking, at a time when Coulson was deputy and the editor was Rebekah Wade, now due to become chief executive of News International. The extent of their personal knowledge, if any, is not clear: the News of the World has always insisted that it would not break the law and would use subterfuge only if essential in the public interest.

Faced with this evidence, News International changed their position, started offering huge cash payments to settle the case out of court, and finally paid out £700,000 in legal costs and damages on the condition that Taylor signed a gagging clause to prevent him speaking about the case. The payment is believed to have included more than £400,000 in damages. News Group then persuaded the court to seal the file on Taylor’s case to prevent all public access, even though it contained prima facie evidence of criminal activity.

The Scotland Yard paperwork also provided evidence that the News of the World had been involved with Mulcaire in his hacking of the mobile phones of at least two other football figures. They filed complaints, which were settled this year when News International paid more than £300,000 in damages and costs on condition that they signed gagging clauses.

Taylor declined to make any comment. Goodman, now out of jail, said: “My comment is not even ‘no comment’.” A spokesman for News International said: “News International feels it is inappropriate to comment at this time.”

Last night, John Whittingdale, the Conservative MP who chairs the culture, media and sport select committee, said the revelation “raises a number of questions that we would want to put to News International”.

He added: “The fact that other people beyond the royal family had their calls intercepted was well known. But we were absolutely assured by News International that none of their journalists were aware of that, that Goodman was acting alone and that Mulcaire was a rogue agent”.

Asked if the committee would reopen the issue, he said: “The committee will want to discuss it very urgently. I think we will do so tomorrow morning, and if we decide that there are further questions to ask, then certainly we would summon back witnesses and ask those questions.”

Former Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil described the story last night as “one of the most significant media stories of modern times”. “It suggests that rather than being a one-off journalist or rogue private investigator, it was systemic throughout the News of the World, and to a lesser extent the Sun,” he said. “Particularly in the News of the World, this was a newsroom out of control.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Met pressed to investigate hacking

July 9th, 2009 | No Comments

• John Prescott says allegations reflect badly on police
• David Cameron resists calls to sack communications chief
• News International is not above the law, says Charles Clarke

The Metropolitan police was coming under mounting pressure today to launch a new investigation into Guardian allegations that the News of the World and other newspapers used criminal methods to get stories by hacking the phones of numerous public figures.

The former deputy prime minister John Prescott, one of the alleged targets of illegal phone-hacking, said he wanted answers from the police. “I find it staggering that there could be a list known to the police of people who had their phone tapped.

“I’m named as one of them. For such a criminal act not to be reported to me, and for action not to be taken against the people who have done it, reflects very badly on the police, and I want to know their answer.”

Prescott called on the Conservative party leader, David Cameron, to dismiss his director of communications, Andy Coulson, who was the deputy editor and then editor of the News of the World when journalists were using illegal methods. Coulson said yesterday: “This story relates to an alleged payment made after I left the News of the World two and half years ago. I took full responsibility at the time for what happened on my watch but without my knowledge and resigned.”

But Prescott said: “I think that David Cameron has to sack Andy Coulson because his denial is very narrow in the extreme. I think David Cameron himself has to be much clearer about the situation.”

This morning Cameron resisted calls to remove Coulson, telling reporters outisde his home in London: “It’s wrong for newspapers to breach people’s privacy with no justification. That is why Andy Coulson resigned as editor of the News of the World two and a half years ago.

“Of course I knew about that resignation before offering him the job. But I believe in giving people a second chance. As director of communications for the Conservatives he does an excellent job in a proper, upright way at all times.”

Earlier, the PR agent Max Clifford, who is also one those whose phones was allegedly hacked into, asked: “Why has this just come out? According to the Guardian, it’s come from police sources. If the police had this information, why didn’t they act on it?”

Speaking to the BBC, he said: “There are lots of questions that need to be answered, serious questions.”

Responding to the claims, the Metropolitan police service (MPS) pointed out that its original investigation led to the conviction of the News of the World reporter Clive Goodman in 2007. “The MPS carried out an investigation into the alleged unlawful interception of telephone calls. Officers liaised closely with the Crown Prosecution Service. Two people were charged and subsequently convicted and jailed. We are not prepared to comment further.”

The London mayor, Boris Johnson, who was one of the figures allegedly targeted and is chairman of Metropolitan Police Authority, was challenged on the issue on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme. “As chairman of the MPA it would not be right to interfere in an operational decision they [the Met] might make.” He added that he was “confident” that if the police had a duty to investigate they would.

He said there was no need for him to contact the police over the matter. “It sounds like there is a full account in the Guardian,” he said.

John Whittingdale, the chairman of the Commons culture committee, said he wanted to summon newspaper editors to answer “serious” questions about the allegations.

“There are a number of questions I would like to put to News International on the basis of what the Guardian has reported,” he said.

His committee would examine the issue “as a matter of urgency” at a scheduled meeting later today, he said. “It may well be that we decide we wish to have somebody from News International to appear before us.”

He said he had seen no “direct evidence” that assurances previously given to the committee by the publisher on the matter had been untrue.

But he added: “If that is the case it does beg the question why News International have apparently paid huge sums of money in settlement of actions in the courts. That is a question I would wish to put to News International.”

The former Cabinet minister Geoff Hoon said: “It is hard to see how in these circumstances Andy Coulson can continue as David Cameron’s communications chief while such a cloud hangs over his reputation. David Cameron must make clear what action he intends to take on this matter.”

The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, said: “At the very least Andy Coulson was responsible for a newspaper that was out of control and at worst he was personally implicated.

“Either way, a future prime minister cannot have someone who is involved in these sort of underhand tactics. The exact parallel is with Damian McBride.

“If it is more than a thousand [phone taps] it seems most unlikely to me to have been just one journalist. There needs to be a full investigation.”

The former home secretary Charles Clarke said: “The home secretary should be asking the chief inspector of constabulary about police behavior in this whole incident. Serious questions need to be answered.”

He questioned why the police did not launch a wider investigation after the discovery that Goodman had been tapping phones for stories.

He told the Today programme: “News International needs to publish a full list of all those who it has bugged. The suggestion that News International is above the law is simply not acceptable … I think Murdoch is such a powerful figure that people don’t want to take him on gratuitously.”

He also called for Coulson to be sacked from his Conservative party role.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Revealed: evidence MI5 tried to hide

July 8th, 2009 | No Comments

MP David Davis’s dramatic parliamentary move exposes treatment of terror suspect

The true depth of British involvement in the torture of terrorism suspects overseas and the manner in which that complicity is concealed behind a cloak of courtroom secrecy was laid bare last night when David Davis MP detailed the way in which one counter-terrorism operation led directly to a man suffering brutal mistreatment.

In a dramatic intervention using the protection of parliamentary privilege, the former shadow home secretary revealed how MI5 and Greater Manchester police effectively sub-contracted the torture of Rangzieb Ahmed to a Pakistani intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), whose routine use of torture has been widely documented.

This is the first time that the information has entered the public domain. Previously it has been suppressed through the process of secret court hearings and, had the Guardian or other media organisations reported it, they would have exposed themselves to the risk of prosecution for contempt of court.

Davis told MPs that although sufficient evidence had been gathered to ensure Ahmed could be prosecuted for serious terrorism offences, he was permitted to fly from Manchester to Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, in 2006 while under surveillance. He then detailed the way in which the British authorities:

• Tipped off the ISI that Ahmed was on his way.

• Told the ISI he was a terrorist and suggested that he should be detained.

• Were aware of the methods used by the ISI while questioning terrorism suspects.

• Drew up a list of questions for the ISI to put to Ahmed.

• Questioned him themselves after he had been in ISI custody for around 13 days.

The officers from MI5 and MI6 who interrogated Ahmed should have known his detention was unlawful because he had not been brought before a court. Ahmed says he told these officers he was being tortured and that signs of his mistreatment would have been evident.

He says he was whipped, beaten, deprived of sleep and sexually humiliated. At one point three fingernails were ripped out of his left hand. He says this was done slowly, over a period of days, while he was being asked questions which he believes were handed to the ISI by British and US authorities.

Addressing the Commons last night, Davis said: “A more obvious case of outsourcing of torture, a more obvious case of passive rendition, I cannot imagine. He should have been arrested by the UK in 2006. He was not. The authorities knew he intended to travel to Pakistan, so they should have prevented that. Instead, they suggested the ISI arrest him. They knew he would be tortured, and they organised to construct a list of questions and provide it to the ISI.”

Ahmed was deported to the UK after 13 months in Pakistani custody, prosecuted largely on the basis of evidence gathered before he had travelled to that country, and jailed for life after being found guilty of membership of al-Qaida and directing a terrorist organisation. The jury at Manchester crown court was not told he had been tortured, and some details of the police and MI5 counter-terrorism operation that resulted in his torture would have been heard in camera, before his trial began and after the media and the public had been excluded from court.

Yesterday the Guardian reported that Ahmed alleges he was recently visited by an MI5 officer and a police officer who said they could arrange for his sentence to be reduced, or for him to be paid money, if he withdrew his complaints about torture during his forthcoming appeal and during civil proceedings in which he is suing the British government. Davis said if this claim was true it was “frankly monstrous”.

Ahmed is one of several British citizens and residents who have alleged British complicity in their torture in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt and the UAE during the so-called war on terror.

Davis told MPs : “For each case, the government has denied complicity, but at the same time fiercely defended the secrecy of its actions which has made it impossible to put the full facts in the public domain, despite the clear public interest to doing so.”

Ahmed, he said, “was astonishingly not arrested but was allowed to leave the country … the British intelligence agencies wrote to their opposite numbers in Pakistan, the ISI, to suggest that they arrest him”. Davis went on: “The intelligence officer who wrote to the Pakistanis did so in full knowledge of the normal methods used by the ISI against terrorist suspects that it holds.”

Davis said Ahmed was “viciously tortured by the ISI. He [Ahmed] claims among other things, he was beaten with wooden staves, the size of cricket stumps,whipped with a three-foot length of tyre rubber and had three fingernails removed from his left hand. There is a dispute between British intelligence officers as to exactly when his fingernails were removed, but an independent pathologist confirmed it happened during the period when he was in Pakistani custody.”

Davis called on ministers to examine the in camera sections of legal argument before Ahmed’s trial and all relevant police and intelligence agency records; publish current guidelines on interrogation of detainees held overseas; and establish if any intelligence officer was disciplined.

“The judge in the court case intimated that disciplinary action should be considered. Was this done? If not, why not?”

Davis also said there was a pressing need for an inquiry into Britain’s involvement in torture. “The Americans have made a clean breast of their complicity, whilst explicitly not prosecuting the junior officers who were acting under instruction. We have done the opposite. As it stands, we are awaiting a police investigation which will presumably end in the prosecution of frontline officers. At the same time the government is fighting tooth and nail to use state secrecy to cover up both crimes and political embarrassments, to protect those who are the real villains of the piece, those who approved the policies in the first place.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Why Tories are winning the pink vote

July 7th, 2009 | No Comments

Labour can’t bear the idea that gay people, too, are repelled by them, and are turning to a changed Tory party

The culture secretary, Ben Bradshaw, asserts that “a deep strain of homophobia still exists on the Conservative benches”. The Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant goes further and warns that “if gays vote Tory they will rue the day very soon”. It’s not hard to detect the desperation in these shrill outbursts – and with good reason. A reputable new poll has found that 38% of gay men intend to vote Conservative at the next election – more than any other party, and a swing away from Labour of 14.2%.

It is this seeming ingratitude that Labour is unable to bear. It cannot comprehend that gay people might be as repelled by the government as everyone else. So now it resorts to pitiful efforts to scare them. “Don’t trust the Tories,” it says, while preposterously claiming that we’ll reverse all the progress towards gay equality that’s been made.

It’s quite hard to make the argument of homophobia stack up when the visible evidence is that the Conservatives have changed. Two shadow cabinet ministers (I’m one of them) are openly gay. As Alan Duncan (the other one) pointed out, more of Michael Howard’s shadow cabinet voted for civil partnerships than the cabinet. We have a number of talented openly gay candidates in winnable seats across the country – selected by the grassroots, not imposed by the party’s high command.

When David Cameron used his first conference speech as party leader to talk about the importance of marriage, he added that the commitment was as important for gay couples as for those who are straight. The conference audience applauded. From that moment, any doubt that the Conservative party was changing its attitude towards gay people should have been dispelled.

This is all immensely inconvenient for Labour politicians, who are determined to maintain clear pink water between the parties because they believe it’s in their electoral interest. Both Bryant and junior Labour minister Angela Eagle have claimed that the Conservatives opposed the new offence of inciting gay hatred. But this is simply not true. We supported the measure – I know, because I led for the opposition and I said so in the Commons. So did David Cameron. We also said that temperate comment had to be protected – a view widely shared in the media, including by leading gay commentators such as Peter Tatchell, who actually opposed the new offence.

That Labour should fall back on an outright lie to justify their charge against the Conservatives says more about them than it does us. Last week, at a Conservative event in support of Gay Pride (a gathering that would have been unthinkable in the old Conservative party), David Cameron apologised for the party’s introduction two decades ago of the infamous section 28, which banned local authorities from portraying homosexuality in a positive light. “I’m sorry,” he said. “We got it wrong … I hope you can forgive us.” Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, described the apology as “a remarkably positive step forward”. In telling contrast, Harriet Harman could not bring herself to welcome it. Don’t be fooled, she said, and anyway it’s all too late.

But it’s never too late to say sorry. Just as Gordon Brown has not understood that voters are rejecting his false dividing line between “investment” and “cuts”, Harman, Bradshaw and Bryant have not understood the lessons of Damian McBride and “smeargate”. When Cameron says he made judgments on gay issues he now believes to be wrong, people respond to his candour as surely as they reject Brown’s dissembling.

There is more for us all to do. We still need to tackle gay bullying in schools and homophobia in sport. We still have bishops telling gays to “change and repent”. Intolerance and persecution of gays in other countries is a real cause of concern. But there is no need for a party divide on such issues. To believe gay people vote only on issues related to their sexuality is patronising and wrong. They care about the same things as anybody else. They want a better future for their country, and a better politics, too.

The truth is the major parties are reaching a consensus on gay equality. So the real dividing line will be between the parties that are honest with the public and those that are not; between those who can mount a broad appeal and those who fall back on a narrow tribal base. Even as their once natural supporters abandon them, New Labour still has not learned that the public is rejecting old politics, and that people – gays included – are crying out for change.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Tories would cut Ofcom powers, says Cameron

July 6th, 2009 | No Comments

Media regulator’s policy-making powers will be removed if Conservatives win next election, says leader

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said today that he would take away Ofcom’s policy making powers and cut back the communications regulator “by a huge amount” if his party wins next year’s general election.

Cameron told BBC Breakfast he planned to save taxpayers money by slimming down Ofcom, including axing its communications department, and other public bodies if he becomes prime minister next year.

“Give Ofcom, or give a new body, the technical function of handing out the licences and regulating lightly the content that is on the screens,” he said.

“But it shouldn’t be making policy, it shouldn’t have its own communications department, the head of Ofcom [Ed Richards] is paid almost half a million pounds,” Cameron added. “We could slim this body down a huge amount and save a lot of money for the taxpayer.”

Ofcom was established by Labour in the 2003 Communications Act and formally took over responsibility for regulating the broadcasting and telecoms sectors on 29 December that year, replacing five bodies – the Independent Television Commission, Radio Authority, Oftel, Radio Communications Agency and Broadcasting Standards Commission.

The regulator has been heavily involved in the formulation of communications policy since then, including the recent Digital Britain report.

Cameron will expand on his party’s plans for cutting back on quangos and public bodies in a speech to the Reform think tank later today.

“This growth in the number of quangos, and in the scope of their influence, raises important questions for our democracy and politics,” he will say.

“Too many state actions, services and decisions are carried out by people who cannot be voted out by the public, by organisations that feel no pressure to answer for what happens – in a way that is completely unaccountable.

“The growth of the quango state is, I believe, one of the main reasons people feel that nothing ever changes; nothing will ever get done and that the state just passes the buck and sends them from pillar to post instead of sorting out problems.”

Cameron will add: “We must reduce the number of quangos in this country. But we must do so in a way that is responsible and which recognises that there are circumstances in which quangos have a useful and important part to play in democratic politics.”

“With a Conservative government any delegation of power by a minister to a quango will not mean a corresponding delegation of responsibility. Even when power is delegated to a quango, the minister remains responsible for the outcome. They set the rules under which the quango operates.”

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Is there pensions apartheid?

July 4th, 2009 | No Comments

False Tory outrage at fat-cat pubic sector benefits is a crude sleight of hand to divert voters’ attention from the real wealth gap

Indignation at “gold-plated” public sector pensions is the latest wave in the Conservative campaign to create a groundswell of support for spending cuts and shrinking the size of the state. Rightwing thinktanks, encouraged by David Cameron and even by the sainted Vince Cable in the Mail on Sunday, have just produced a series of reports attacking public-sector pensions. It is a deft diversion from the real fat-cat pensions of Fred Goodwin (now reduced to £342,500 a year) and his ilk on to the rather more modest pensions of nurses, teachers and care workers: the average public employee pension is £7,000.

It’s a well-timed assault, as private-sector employees still lucky enough to have an occupational pension open their statements and reel at seeing how very much less than expected they will get, with anything from a third to a half knocked off by the crash. Who should they blame? The bankers who bust the economy? Boardrooms who help themselves to vast pay, bonuses and pensions while closing company schemes for everyone else? No, the Tory hue and cry is turning them against public sector workers. If ever there were a deliberate creation of the politics of envy, this is it.

Rightwing thinktank reports have produced shock-horror numbers. Best was the British-North American Committee, which hit last week’s news with this: “UK public sector pension liabilities now 85% of GDP.” Good grief! Does that leave the rest of us just 15% to live on while the fat-cat retired dinner ladies, ward clerks and binmen live the life of Riley? It is, of course, a nonsense number, a statistical prestidigitation done by adding all public sector pension liabilities for those now retired to a life-time obligation to every existing state employee. Roll up all the money and describe it as a debt owed in one year and you get silly numbers. It’s like taking all your mortgage and all the interest you will pay over its course, and comparing that total debt with one year’s income. It will look wildly unaffordable.

The true figure is quite high, but rather less alarming. Public pensions cost 1.4% of GDP; and that will rise to 2% in 2027 and fall back below 2% thereafter. There is no inexorable upward trajectory. It may need adjustment, such as raising the pension age. As Adair Turner suggested this week, this needs to be done faster for everyone: we need to work longer. But dragging down public sector pensions won’t do anything to help those who have no private pension, or a much reduced one. Cutting public sector pensions would not save the state much either: many are low earners so what they lost on pension they would claim through pension credit.

The real problem is the devastation of private pensions. Company pensions have faced rising costs as people have lived longer: each year of life costs pension funds 3% more. Share values have not risen as fast as expected, while funding requirements were tightened by the Conservatives after the Robert Maxwell scandal. In the 1960s, 8 million private employees had occupational pensions; now it’s only 2 million.

What contributed to their mass closure was a culture change in the City as companies chased share price values to the exclusion of all else. A decent scheme used to be the norm for any respectable firm: many managers had not realised they could be ditched. But after the Big Bang, to have a good pension scheme was seen by City analysts as a sign of weak management, risking predatory takeover. So it happened that a country growing 30% richer every decade suddenly decided it could not or would not afford company pensions any longer. Last week’s Telegraph leader repeated the refrain that the “primary reason” for the closure of private pensions was Gordon Brown’s “raid” on pension dividends, but compared with the above factors and the stockmarket’s collapse, that £5bn a year was a bit-player.

The Turner commission has led to a new compulsory scheme where all employers will have to contribute 3% of pay into a pension while employees pay 4%. It’s a good start, but needs ratcheting up. In remaining private schemes employers pay an average of 10%, while public sector employers contribute 20% for better pensions.

Is that 20% too much, or is the private sector paying too little? A handful of headline-grabbing fat-cat public pensions for MPs, judges and a few others could be trimmed: as Michael Martin’s £1.4m pension hit the news, MPs wisely voted to freeze their own pensions last week. But the great majority of the cost of public pensions goes to the modestly paid, more of them women, which is why the average is just £7,000 a year. Any meaningful cut would push many back into pensioner poverty. Yet a cut is what David Cameron rashly proposed last year. “We’ve got to end the apartheid in pensions,” he told businessmen. The next day Conservative headquarters panicked and backtracked, fearing for public sector votes. But public employees have been warned.

The real pensions apartheid is not between public and private, but between the wealthy and the rest. Every taxpayer contributes heftily to the pensions of the rich, and half of tax relief goes to the top 10% of earners. A quarter goes to the less than 1% who earn more than £150,000. At last, along with the 50% tax band, incomes of more than £150,000 will from next year only get tax relief at 20%, not 40%. It was greeted with vociferous rage and the usual threats to leave the country, along with protests by the the very same wealthy people at the cost of modest public sector pensions. Tax relief still needs rebalancing to make sure most state encouragement to save goes to those with least.

Labour has a goodish pensions record – though you might not know it, as yet another report this week from the OECD put the UK bottom when comparing basic state pensions. Our basic was worth 26% of average earnings in 1979, but when the Conservatives decoupled it from earnings, it fell to 16%. But that’s misleading: nearly half of pensioners are eligible for Labour’s pension credit. Add in winter fuel allowance, housing and council tax benefit and free buses, and UK pensioners shoot up the league.

The state pension is due to be relinked to earnings in 2012 – though if the Conservatives are in power, will they do it? Labour’s new compulsory pensions for all employers will be a long-lasting legacy, and not appreciated for years. The Conservatives seem to be heading in the opposite direction.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Tories deny ‘homophobia’ claims

July 3rd, 2009 | No Comments

Alan Duncan describes Labour as the ‘nasty party’ after Ben Bradshaw points to ‘deep strain of homophobia’ within Conservative party

Ben Bradshaw, the culture secretary, triggered a bitter row today after claiming that “a deep strain of homophobia” existed among Tory MPs.

Alan Duncan, the shadow leader of the Commons, claimed that the comment was “simply untrue” and that it showed that Labour was “actually the nasty party”.

The two men – who are both gay – clashed ahead of the Gay Pride march in London tomorrow, which Sarah Brown, the prime minister’s wife, is due to attend.

Earlier this week David Cameron spoke at a Gay Pride event and apologised for the fact that the Tories introduced section 28, the law banning the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools, in the 1980s.

Cameron, who voted against the repeal of section 28 in 2003, said: “I am sorry for section 28. We got it wrong. It was an emotional issue. I hope you can forgive us.”

Following Cameron’s comments, two Labour ministers told the BBC that the Tory leader’s words should not obscure his party’s anti-gay record.

Bradshaw said: “I hope that people in the lesbian, gay and transgender community will closely examine the Conservatives’ record on this, and David Cameron’s record in particular, which is not good.”

He went on: “A deep strain of homophobia still exists on the Conservative benches”.

Chris Bryant, the Foreign Office minister, who is also gay, claimed that Cameron could be pushed into rolling back some of the pro-gay reforms introduced by Labour if he won the election.

“I think if gays vote Tory, they will rue the day very soon,” he said.

But today Duncan told the London Evening Standard that Bradshaw and Bryant were “trying to stir up hatred and division” and that the Tories were not homophobic.

“I believed we had reached the happy point where politics had been taken out of this altogether. But these remarks show that Labour is actually the nasty party,” Duncan said.

“I have publicly paid tribute to Tony Blair for his achievements, particularly on introducing civil partnerships. David Cameron this week said that on section 28 we had to admit we got it wrong. The party has changed. I bet in Labour backwaters there are plenty of people who don’t like the fact that Ben Bradshaw is gay.”

A survey of Tory candidates in winnable seats published on the ConservativeHome website today shows that 62% think same-sex couples should have the same rights as married couples, but that 31% disagree.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Osborne investigated over expenses

July 2nd, 2009 | No Comments

Parliamentary commissioner for standards confirms he is looking into allowances of shadow chancellor

George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, is being investigated by parliament’s standards watchdog over his expenses, it emerged today.

John Lyon, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, confirmed that he is investigating a complaint relating to the way Osborne claimed for a mortgage worth £450,000, which he used to fund a house that cost £445,000.

A spokesman for the commissioner would not discuss details of the complaint, which was submitted by a Labour activist.

But, in a letter to Laurie Burton, the chair of the local Labour party in Osborne’s Tatton constituency, Lyon said: “I have accepted your complaint and am inviting [Osborne's] comments.”

In his letter, Lyon said he would look into a claim that “Mr Osborne claimed for mortgage payments that were not necessarily incurred, contrary to the rules of the house.”

Osborne took out a mortgage of nearly £5,000 more than the reported price of his house and claimed Commons allowances to cover interest payments on the whole debt, rather than just the cost of buying the house.

“Since your complaint involves allegations relating to events of over seven years ago, I have consulted the House of Commons committee on standards and privileges and they have agreed to me initiating an inquiry into this part of your complaint,” Lyon said.

He said he put the claims to Osborne, adding: “When I have received his response, I will consider best how to proceed.”

The commissioner said he would not launch an inquiry into Burton’s other complaint – that the shadow chancellor had “flipped” his second home and avoided paying capital gains tax.

“This is a matter for HMRC [HM Revenue and Customs],” he told him.

Osborne has strongly denied any wrongdoing and has always insisted that he acted within the rules.

He has defended the decision to take out a mortgage worth £450,000 on the grounds that he needed the extra money to pay for repairs and removal costs. These took the total cost to more than £480,000, he has said.

Osborne has also said that his claim was approved by the Commons authorities.

In a statement issued in response to the news that he was being investigated, a spokesman for Osborne said: “This is a political complaint by the local Labour party. We note that one has been made against Alistair Darling as well. George is relaxed about it and has always been very open in answering questions about his expenses.”

The spokesman also said that the cost of moving into the Cheshire home and doing essential repairs was more than £480,000 and that “thanks to the tracker mortgage deal he is currently on, the monthly interest costs on his Cheshire home charged to the parliamentary allowance are now close to zero”.

In regards to the allegation that he “flipped” his second home, the spokesman said: “When George Osborne became an MP in 2001 he sat down with a representative from the fees office. He explained that Harrop Fold Farm in Cheshire was his second home but that he had increased the interest-only mortgage on his existing home in London to cover the cost of purchasing and moving into it.

“The representative of the fees office advised him to claim ACA [the additional costs allowance] against that mortgage until he could change the mortgage arrangements. In 2003, when he was able to change the mortgage arrangement without incurring penalty charges, he secured a mortgage against Harrop Fold Farm – and from then on claimed ACA against it.

“Since he became an MP, George Osborne has always made it clear to the House of Commons authorities and the Inland Revenue that he regarded his home in Cheshire as his second home.”

Burton said he believed Osborne had breached the MPs’ code of conduct and brought the Commons “into disrepute”.

And he denied his complaint was politically motivated, insisting he was acting as an ordinary voter feeling “outrage and disgust” over widespread abuses of the system.

“When they [expenses details] were published I was extremely concerned at the way he flipped his mortgages on his first and second homes in order to claim the maximum amount possible on mortgages and also to avoid paying capital gains tax,” he told Sky News.

“He bought a house outside his constituency of Tatton about a year before he was elected and he bought it for cash. Then he took a mortgage on it two years later after he was elected and he just went on from there.

“He first called it his main home and then he called it his second home and he is just a prime example of the way some politicians have been bending the rules to get most benefit.”

The commissioner is investigating complaints against several MPs relating to expenses, including the former ministers Jacqui Smith and Tony McNulty, but Osborne is the most senior Tory to come under his spotlight.

The commissioner’s office also said today that he would not be taking any further a complaint about the Alistair Darling.

One of Darling’s constituents was understood to have lodged a complaint that he “flipped” second home designations four times in four years to maximise expenses.

That was lodged on the same day as the complaint against Osborne amid signs of a tit-for-tat row.

A spokeswoman for the commissioner’s office said the correspondence concerning Darling was not being acted upon.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Read More »

Cameron apologises for section 28

July 2nd, 2009 | No Comments

David Cameron has embarked on another major step in the modernisation of the Conservative party by offering a public apology for section 28, the notorious legislation which banned the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools.

In a gesture hailed by gay rights campaigners as “historic”, Cameron condemned section 28 as “offensive to gay people” and predicted that a Conservative would become Britain’s first openly gay prime minister.

The Tory leader, who voted against the repeal of section 28 as recently as 2003, reached out to the gay community on Tuesday night at a Tory fundraising event linked to Gay Pride this weekend.

“Yes, we may have sometimes been slow and, yes, we may have made mistakes, including Section 28, but the change has happened,” Cameron said of the repeal of the legislation originally passed in 1988 when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister.

In remarks reported by the Pink Paper, he admitted that he did not have a “perfect record” on gay rights, a reference to his decision in 2003 to vote for the retention of section 28. But he added: “It does give me great pride to be standing here to celebrate Gay Pride and all you have achieved.

“If five years ago we had a Conservative and Gay Pride party, I don’t think many gay people would have come or many Conservatives would have come. In wanting to make the party representative of the country, I think we have made some real progress.

“If we do win the next election, instead of being a white middle class middle-aged party, we will be far more diverse. The Conservatives had the first woman prime minister and we are bound to have the first black prime minister and the first gay prime minister.”

Ben Summerskill, the chief executive of Stonewall, described Cameron’s speech as “historic”. He said: “We have heard the leader of the Conservative party say the words ‘section 28′ and ‘sorry’.”

Cameron’s apology shows how far the Tory party has moved in the past decade. Shaun Woodward, now Northern Ireland secretary, defected to Labour after he was sacked from the Tory frontbench by William Hague in 2000 for rebelling against the party’s support for section 28.

Cameron, who succeeded Woodward as MP for Witney at the 2001 general election, mocked his opposition to section 28. “Did Mr Woodward order a survey of local opinion about the issue that triggered his resignation – clause 28 and the promotion of homosexuality in schools?” Cameron wrote in a letter to the Daily Telegraph in September 2000.

The future Tory leader voted to retain Section 28 in the 2003 Commons vote which led to its abolition. Cameron, whose wife Samantha has long opposed section 28, later admitted that this was a mistake.

In his first conference speech as Tory leader, three years later in 2006, Cameron showed how he had moved on in what he called a “journey”. He said: “There’s something special about marriage. Pledging yourself to another means doing something brave and important … You are making a commitment.

“And by the way, it means something whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man. That’s why we were right to support civil partnerships, and I’m proud of that.”

However as recently as last year, Cameron alarmed gay and lesbian campaigners by voting to restrict access for lesbian couples hoping to conceive children through in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

To the surprise of Tory modernisers he supported a Commons amendment by the former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith that would have strengthened existing laws to make IVF clinics consider the “need for a father and a mother” before allowing women to begin fertility treatment. The amendment was defeated.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

The anti-aid agenda

July 2nd, 2009 | No Comments

If Berlusconi sets the tone at next week’s G8, it will be a disaster for a cherished Labour goal

The G8 is less than a week away but already the Italian presidency is seen as having a disastrous impact on aid. Uninterested, disorganised and short is likely to be the summary of the summit by the end of next week: the G8 leaders, according to the latest plans, will have only three hours sitting down together.

While the developing world reels from the economic downturn, Italy has shown no ambition for the aid agenda. It is falling dramatically behind on its own commitments made in 2005 at Gleneagles and is instituting draconian cuts of 56% in its aid budget this year. Italy will end up with the lowest rate of aid – less than 0.1% of GDP – in the G8, despite its reiterations of commitment to the European agreement to reach 0.51% by 2010.

Italy’s lamentable performance is prompting a crisis of identity for the G8. Accusations of summit ceremony with no substance have always dogged the event, but given that it no longer represents all the biggest economies (China is not a member), or the biggest populations (such as China or India), its one last claim to world leadership has been as the world’s biggest aid donor. But even that claim now looks fragile in Italy’s hands. Spain has overtaken Italy in GDP per capita and now has one of the highest aid rates in the EU, handsomely ahead of Italy. The question of whether Silvio Berlusconi has forfeited his right to a place at the top table is likely to hover over events next week.

But the failures of Rome are only one aspect of how to ensure the survival of one of Labour’s most cherished achievements over the last 12 years: pushing increased aid up both the international and domestic agenda. By 2010 Britain is on track to have increased its aid budget to 0.62% of GDP, one of the highest in the EU and not far short of the totemic 0.7% set by the UN in 1970. While many departments are braced for cuts, aid is to increase – and the Tories have promised to abide by the increases. Labour has established a new political consensus on aid domestically, and an international profile on the issue which is widely admired. But can it hold?

That is part of the impetus behind the white paper expected next week from Department of International Development (DfiD). It indicates a growing unease across many parts of government that now is the time to lash the legacy down, to make it as difficult as possible for the Tories to unpick. The aim is to make aid analogous with the NHS or the BBC, a significant part of British identity. That means that a lot more people need to know what DfiD does, and this is what lies behind proposals to rebrand with a logo of UKaid.

It’s all laudable stuff, but difficult. At heart, aid is a moral argument about interconnectedness in a small world, and Labour has doggedly championed that message under the likes of Clare Short, Hilary Benn and, now, Douglas Alexander. The Tories have bought into that, because as one observer put it: “It’s a cheap way to detoxify the brand, aid represents only 1% of government spending.” But the concern is that the Tories might dilute the primacy of poverty reduction – diverting money into Foreign Office objectives, perhaps dismantling Dfid, as John Major and Douglas Hurd suggested recently. So the new white paper will try to buttress the moral argument with an awareness of self-interest: African economies, if strong enough, offer huge potential markets.

With energy draining away at an international level and a critique of aid gathering strength with the likes of economist Dambisa Moyo, it’s a vulnerable moment for the aid agenda. The fear is that achievements are hard won – involving huge effort in mobilising people on to the streets – and can easily fall apart: commitments dropped, and targets missed when everyone thought the job had been largely done.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Commons rejects expenses reforms

July 1st, 2009 | No Comments

• Reid and Beckett among rebels in three-vote defeat
• Tories accused in rush to push through legislation

The government’s efforts to rush through emergency legislation to clean up politics tonight took a second knock in as many days as it was defeated in its attempts to make it easier to secure prosecutions in alleged cases of “cash for questions”.

On the third and final day of debate on the parliamentary standards bill in the Commons, the government was defeated by three votes, 250 to 247, on plans to end “parliamentary privilege” and allow parliamentary debates to be used in court as evidence. John Reid, the former home secretary, voted against the government for the first time in his parliamentary career. Margaret Beckett, the former foreign secretary, was another rebel.

The justice secretary, Jack Straw, said he would “respect” the will of the house.But a government spokesman described the defeat as “scandalous” and accused Conservative MPs of a lack of will to reform. A Conservative spokesman said the vote was “a complete shambles” and insisted they supported other planks of the bill. The new legislation has been squeezed into the last three weeks of parliament’s agenda, as the main parties push for new rules to reach the statute book before the summer. That would allow MPs to leave Westminster for the three-month summer break to work in their constituencies. But some have been unhappy at the crunched timetable for the bill and the attempt by the government to add new “legal” elements to the legislation.

Under the plans, the new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority would oversee expenses claims and have powers to recommend fines or expulsion for MPs who break the rules.

On Monday night the government dropped plans which could have made a new code of conduct for MPs legally enforceable. On Tuesday the justice secretary dropped a further aspect of the bill, which would have legally required MPs to declare any “specified financial interest” before taking part in a debate in the Commons chamber. After the Labour backbencher Frank Field said he would rather go to jail than obey this, Straw announced he would drop that aspect.

Sir Stuart Bell, one of the Labour rebels, said: “When we kicked off we expected a bill that was going to get rid of the incestuous relationship between MPs and the Fees Office. But then the government added in all sorts of additional clauses that created new criminal offences.

“The problem was that we were seeing all privilege going to the courts as in the US where Congress gets challenged all the way to the supreme court.”"

Today the cross-party justice select committee published a report warning ending parliamentary privilege would curb MPs’ ability to speak freely on behalf of voters. Particularly damaging was evidence by the clerk of the house, Malcolm Jack, who warned the move would have a “chilling effect” on MPs and undermine parliamentary privilege. The concerns of the justice committee were shared by the human rights committee. Its chair, Andrew Dismore, said the parliamentary standards bill in its current form was incompatible with human rights laws, and MPs under investigation should have the “opportunity to be heard in person”.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

BBC director general paid too much, say Tories

July 1st, 2009 | No Comments

BBC director general Mark Thompson needs ‘reality check’ on pay, says Tory shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt

The BBC director general, Mark Thompson, is paid too much money and needs a “reality check”, the shadow culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, said today.

Hunt, speaking at the Radio Festival in Nottingham today, was also sceptical about government plans for a 2015 analogue radio switchoff date, saying it risked coming too soon and angering listeners and voters.

The Conservative culture spokesman added that Thompson’s total remuneration package – £816,000 last year – was a “huge amount of money”.

“I think to be director general of the BBC is a privilege, just like it is a privilege to be a member of parliament and I don’t think we do it for the money,” Hunt said.

“We have got into a ratchet effect with public sector salaries benchmarked against the private sector. I think £816,000 is too much for the director general of the BBC. It is a huge amount of money and one of the areas where we need to have a reality check.”

Hunt told radio executives in Nottingham that a future Conservative government would be “wholeheartedly behind the digital switchover of the radio industry”, while questioning whether the 2015 date set by Lord Carter’s Digital Britain report last month was achievable.

“I think 2015 is unrealistic unless we do more between now and 2015 than is currently planned. I would find it difficult to recommend to prime minister Cameron as things stand now that there should be switchoff in 2015,” Hunt said.

But he added that Digital Britain did not address the inadequacies of digital audio broadcasting – DAB – coverage, or who was going to pay to improve it. And he said while progress was being made to develop in-car digital radio, not enough was being done.

The prospect of millions of analogue radio sets becoming redundant would be “incredibly unpopular” among listeners and “very environmentally unfriendly”, he added.

“We don’t want to switch off a lot of listeners at precisely the time the radio industry needs every listener it can get,” he said.

“We need to think about the listener, the consumer, and ask whether we are really going to say that 120m radio sets will become redundant in 2015, or whether we want to have a smoother migration path in the way we had the migration from tape, to CD, to the iPod.

“If the market hasn’t got to the place where it needs to be by 2015, should Ofcom be given the power to extend that deadline? So we have switchover but we don’t necessarily have switchoff in 2015.

“We need to find things that make digital radio and DAB radio a lot more exciting to consumers than it current is. At the moment, people feel there is a small improvement in quality but apart from that the benefits are small. In fact, for many people they question whether there are benefits at all.

“We have to work together to make this happen. There is a lot that has to happen to make sure we don’t end up with angry consumers and angry listeners.”

He mooted the possibility of a swap scheme where people could exchange their analogue radios for digital audio broadcasting (DAB) radios for free as one way of encouraging further digital radio takeup.

• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 3353 3857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 3353 2000.

• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly “for publication”.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »

Cameron: Brown claims black is white

June 29th, 2009 | No Comments

There is a thread of dishonesty running through the government, says Tory leader

David Cameron today launched a blistering personal attack on the prime minister, claiming there was a “thread of dishonesty” running through his premiership.

The Conservative leader stopped short of calling Gordon Brown a liar but claimed the prime minister said “black is white” and his government had “lost touch with morality”.

He described the apparent postponement of the next government spending review as an attempt to “cover up the truth about Labour’s cuts”.

The Tory leader said the move was part of the government’s “pattern of deception” in the recent row over future spending on public services.

Lord Mandelson, the business secretary, indicated today that the government would not set out new public spending plans before the next general election, arguing it was currently impossible to forecast the economy two years ahead.

But speaking at a Westminster press conference today, Cameron said: “Cancelling the spending review is nothing to do with economic uncertainty and everything to do with political manoeuvring.

“It is a blatant attempt to cover up the truth about Labour’s cuts.”

Listing a catalogue of issues on which he claimed the prime minister had not told the truth, Cameron said: “There is now a huge amount of deceit about the government’s spending plans … I believe there is a thread of dishonesty running through this premiership.

“From cancelling the election and then saying it had nothing to do with the opinion polls, to his claim that abolishing the 10p income tax [rate] would have nothing to do in terms of hitting the poor.

“We’ve had his insistence that Alistair Darling is his first choice as chancellor. We all know that wasn’t true.”

Cameron added: “At the end of the day the truth will out. The prime minister is calculating that the public are too stupid to notice it. I have much more respect for the public than that.”

Asked whether he was prepared to go into the next election with the Conservative party proposing public spending cuts while the government pledged to increase spending, Cameron replied: “I don’t care what the government does any more. They can announce cuts, they can announce increases, they can set out whatever they want. Set the whole thing to music and do a karaoke. I have lost faith in a prime minister who stands up and says black is white. We will make our own decisions about what’s right for the country.”

Pressed further about Brown’s claims that a Conservative government would cut spending, Cameron referred to tactics he claimed were being used in the upcoming Norwich North byelection. “When you see the leaflets they have put out I don’t know how the prime minister gets out of bed in the morning,” Cameron said.

“At the end of a government like this I think they have lost not only touch with the public but all sense of morality. They have got to be honest about their own spending plans.”

Asked directly whether he thought Brown was a liar, Cameron said he had chosen his words carefully, but he added: “I have said there is a thread of dishonesty running through the government. We have got someone [the prime minster] who is not being straight with us. I cannot put it any clearer than that.”

During the hour-long press conference the Tory leader announced that from December all member of the shadow cabinet would give up their second jobs, and he published a list of shadow cabinet outside interests as of 1 July. He also challenged Lord Mandelson’s claim this morning that a controversial vote on Royal Mail would have to be postponed due to lack of parliamentary time.

He suggested extending the parliamentary sitting for an extra day to accommodate the debate and said he would look into whether it was possible to allot an opposition day debate to ensure the proposal gets a second reading.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Read More »
Page 3 of 3123